Facts
Budhram Kanwar died following a motor accident on October 13, 2024, when his motorcycle was struck by an offending vehicle (Registration No. CG-08-AP-8625) driven by Respondent No. 7 and owned by Respondent No. 8
Source reference: p. 2, para 4-5The claimants (widow, three minor children, and mother) filed for compensation, asserting the deceased was a 39-year-old mason earning Rs. 15,000 per month
Source reference: p. 2-3, para 5The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Durg, awarded Rs. 16,85,456/-
Source reference: p. 2, para 4The Appellant Insurance Company appealed, contending that the offending vehicle was falsely implicated and that the deceased's monthly income was assessed too high in the absence of documentary evidence
Source reference: p. 3, para 8Issues
1. Whether the offending vehicle was involved in the accident and if the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 7
Source reference: p. 4, para 122. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 12,118/- was excessive or unreasonable
Source reference: p. 4, para 13Law Applied
The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding appeals against awards
Source reference: p. 2, para 3It relied on the evidentiary principle of "preponderance of probability" rather than "proof beyond reasonable doubt" in motor accident claims, as established by the Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others (2009) 13 SCC 530
Source reference: p. 4, para 12Reasoning
The Court noted that the Appellant failed to raise a specific plea in their written statement regarding the non-involvement of the vehicle
Source reference: p. 4, para 12Applying the Bimla Devi standard, the Court held that the Tribunal correctly took a holistic view of the criminal and oral evidence to establish negligence on a preponderance of probabilities
Source reference: p. 4, para 12Regarding the quantum of compensation, the Court observed that though documentary evidence of income was lacking, the assessment of Rs. 12,118 per month for a 39-year-old mason with five dependents (including a widow, three minors, and an elderly mother) was neither excessive nor unjust considering the financial needs of the family and the date of the accident
Source reference: p. 4-5, para 13-14Holding
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal’s findings on negligence and the assessment of income were based on proper appreciation of evidence and required no interference
The delay of 34 days in filing the appeal was condoned, but the award of Rs. 16,85,456/- was upheld
Source reference: p. 2, para 2; p. 5, para 15Original Court PDF
TATA A.I.G. GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITEDvsSANGEETA BAI KANWAR
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in